Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV19395, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19395    Hearing Date: May 14, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matter Asserted filed by Cross-Defendant Juan G. Lopez.

Tentative

The motion is denied.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.

Background

On May 21, 2021, Juan G. Lopez, Diana Rojas-Lopez and Maria Rojas (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Pedro Tavares, Tavares Transportation, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on June 19, 2019, on the 210 Freeway near Lake Avenue in Pasadena.

On August 20, 2021, Pedro Tavares and Tavares Transportation, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Juan G. Lopez (“Lopez”) and Roes 1 through 100.  On December 13, 2021, Lopez filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On March 10, 2023, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Frank Martin Chavez as Doe 1.

On October 27, 2023, Lopez served Tavares Transportation, Inc. (“Transportation”) with Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) (Set One).  (Lewis Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.)  Transportation did not serve responses to the RFAs.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.)

On April 12, 2024, Lopez filed this motion for an order deeming Transportation to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in the RFAs.  Lopez also seeks sanctions.  Transportation filed an opposition on May 1, and Lopez filed a reply on May 7.

While this motion was pending, Transportation served verified responses to the RFAs on April 30, 2024.  (Purcell Decl., ¶ 8 & Exh. A.)

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

 “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) 

Discussion

Lopez served Transportation with the RFAs on October 27, 2023.  (Lewis Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.)  Transportation did not serve timely responses, and in fact did not serve any responses at all until more than six months later, on April 30, 2024.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-5; Purcell Decl., ¶ 8 & Exh. A.)

Transportation did, however, serve responses before the hearing.  These responses are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  Accordingly, the motion for a deemed admitted order is denied.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The request for sanctions is granted in part.  Transportation’s failure to serve timely responses to the RFAs necessitated this motion, the conduct of Transportation is not substantially justified, and it would not be unjust to impose sanctions against Transportation for its violation of the Civil Discovery Act.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Sanctions are also sought and awarded against counsel, as counsel failed to calendar the response date properly.  (Purcell Decl., ¶ 4.) 

Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion for a deemed-admitted order, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $585, calculated based on 2.5 hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $210 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee.  (See Lewis Decl., ¶ 6.)

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Lopez’s motion for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court GRANTS in part Lopez’s request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Tavares Transportation, Inc. and the Law Office of Steven R. Odell, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Lopez under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $585 within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.